Patrick,

Please read my blog on the Name Game, and follow my logic on how people  are being forced to comply with the income tax (Title 26 USC) or face  fines, imprisonment and confiscation of property.

The NAME GAME Explained

Recent research here in Canada shows that the income tax, and all other statutory  law, is imposed based upon the 'property right', and that property right is the  property right of the corporate Crown in Canada, and corporate State (be it a State  or the UNITED STATES) in the USA.

The same scheme can be found in any country that is a subject country of the Pontiff  of Rome's Holy Roman Empire. Thus, in actuality, the assumed 'property right' is that  of the corporate Holy Roman Empire, as the Crown or incorporated State is an agency  for the Holy Roman Empire.

The 'Crown' is the administrative corporation of the Pontiff of Rome owned City of  London, the financial, legal and professional standards capitol of/for the Vatican,  The City of London is a square mile area within Greater London, England, and is an  independent city-state.

In the USA, the administrative corporation for the Pontiff of Rome is the UNITED STATES, and that corporation administers the Vatican capitol, for, primarily, military purposes,  called Columbia, or the District of Columbia. The UNITED STATES also administers the 50 sub-corporate States of the United States of America, identified with the 2 cap letters- CA, OR, WA, etc.

All adult humans are deceived into using the fiction name, as imprinted on the copy of  the birth certificate you receive when ordering it from Provincial/State Vital Statistics,  or to whatever source you apply. Although the birth certificate is of somewhat recent  origin and used to formally offer 'citizens' as chattel in bankruptcy to the Pope's Holy  Roman Empire owned Rothschilds' Banking System, the false use of the family name goes  back into the Middle Ages in England. Thus, it is with the family name made a primary,  or surname,  (example - Mister Jones), and the given names of the child (example - Peter)  made a reference name to the primary name. This is the reverse or mirror image to reality.  A 'family name' is NOT a man's name - it is a name of a clan - a blood relationship.  [Replace the example names with your given and family name.]

We are then 'forced' or 'obliged' to use that name in all commercial and Government  dealings and communications. So, when we do use it, as 99.99% of the human inhabitants  of North America (and most of the world) do, we supposedly 'voluntarily' attach ourselves,  the free will adult human, to the Crown/State owned property, called the 'legal identity name' as an accessory attached to property owned by Another party..

The Crown/State then invokes the legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, [an accessory attached to a principal becomes the property of the owner of the principal], where the principal is the legal identity name as 'intellectual property', the owner is the corporation called the Crown/State or UNITED STATES, and the accessory is the free will human who has supposedly volunteered himself to be 'property by attachment' of the Crown/State. An adult human who is property is, and by any other name, a 'slave', be it citizen, subject or freeman.

I would point out here that all concepts that teach that the relationship between free will man and Government/corporate bodies is contractual are incorrect. All supposed remedies in contract law, American UCC or Canadian PPSA are 'red herring' diversions - some intended, and some in ignorance by the teachers.

As a slave, one's property in possession, including body and labor, belongs to the slave owner 100%. And, the property right is a bundle of rights - own, use, sell, gift, bequeath and hypothecate property.

Thus, ALL 'income' resulting from the owned human slave's mental and/or physical labor belongs to the slave owner. That which is left with or granted to the slave for his own use and maintenance is called a 'benefit'. In Canada, the 'return of income' [the phrase itself tells the story] is called a T1 'tax and benefits package'. The T1 or 1040 is an accounting by the slave of his fruits of labor that belongs to the slave owner, and the prescribed 'benefits' that he may keep or have back from withholding.

Thus, all income tax cases', in reality, result from fraud, illegal concealment and theft by the accused slave of the slave owner's 'property'.

Going back to an above paragraph, we find that the attachment of oneself to the Crown/State owned name is 'assumed to be voluntary', as the Crown/State has no valid right to impose slavery upon adult humans against their will. And, constitutional prohibitions of slavery only encompasses ' involuntary servitude', not 'voluntary servitude'. Anyone working as an employee is in a contract of voluntary servitude - direction and time control by, and obedience and loyalty to the employer. Until we 'assumed to be slaves' get our heads around this key to the lock that holds our chains of slavery around our necks and ankles, we will continue to attempt to swim with that 100 lb ball chained to our leg.

Reports of unsuccessful attempts at paying government imposed debts using the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act or US UCC provisions of settling an account proved that there was no contract issue between a Canadian or American adult human and the Government as is commonly taught by some patriot gurus.Under contract, a 'bill' is a method of equalizing a contract - like value exchanged for like value. However, under the 'property right' of a slave owner in regard to property in the possession of an owned slave, a 'demand' for the property by the slave owner, or the slave

owner's agent (such as the IRS, or county tax collector, or for a court imposed fine),is all that is necessary, without regard to due process of law. Remember, ALL that a slave possesses belongs to the slave owner. I am NOT saying you ARE a slave. I just point out to you that Government, and its employees, judges and officers SEE you as a SLAVE.

Further, when any 'officer' of the corporate body, be it 'peace officer or police', all the way to King or President choose to declare someone 'homo sacer' (meaning a man who has been stripped of his status of 'person' - that being an obedient corporate slave member of the corporate body politic) - he is stripped of the rights of due process of law, and can be fined, punished, tortured or killed without repercussion to the officer, or officer involved. This happens all the time in the world of the Holy Roman Empire.

This doctrine of 'homo sacer' is clearly presented in the US Fugitive Slave Act 1850, Section 6:http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm

Quote:

"In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever. Unquote

Three major points here: 1. The accused disobedient slave cannot enter evidence in his own defense. Sound familiar? The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and German 'Holocaust Denial' litigation courts declare that "truth is no defense".  Judges constantly ignore offered defenses by Government accused defendants, especially in traffic and income tax issues. And, this may be acceptable if the judge were to explain why he need do that, but almost 100% of the time, no explanation is offered, and that is to hide the 'homo sacer' doctrine, and the fact that a slave is being tried for disobedience to the rules within the slave owner's property right.

2. The 'certificate' presented by the officer or agent of the property owner (declaration of property ownership) is sufficient for conviction of disobedience.

3. No molestation (such as criminal or civil complaints) can be made by, or on behalf of the accused or convicted disobedient slave. Anyone know of successful

litigation against a police officer or judge who severely abused the unalienable rights of a man? Yes, there may be a few in well publicized cases, where the system has to hide their despotic Roman scheme, but that is rare.

A POSSIBLE REMEDY

However, since we are 'forced to', or 'obliged to' use the Crown/State owned legal identity name in all commercial and government dealings, services and communications, we can make a 'claim of right' under the Rule of Private Necessity - with the necessity being the means to sustain and maintain our life, as all food, shelter, clothing, means of travel and that which answers our need for happiness all has to be obtained or used in the realms of commerce. Briefly, commerce is all communications, contracts, and other interrelations and interactions with other parties, which includes government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(tort)

This should counter the claim that we 'voluntarily' attach ourselves to Crown/State property. Repeating - The Private Necessity is that we cannot do anything in relation to life, liberty, property or due process of law without using the Crown/State owned name, and thus we cannot sustain or maintain our lives without that fiction name.

The name separation is only a court tactic, as the legal identity name is always the one charged. The Government intent, of course, is to get to the adult man (m or f) attached to that name - the attached accessory - you. Otherwise you, and your  children need to 'use' that legal identity name in all commerce (communication), and you do so under private necessity. So, only in court do you need to prove:

1. That you are a separate party from the named defendant.

2. That you only use the legal identity name, named as defendant, under private necessity to sustain and maintain your life, and that you are not voluntarily attached to it permanently as an accessory to Crown property.

3. That you have Her Majesty's permission to use that Crown owned legal name according to Vital Statistics Acts of the Canadian Provinces.

4. That the copy of the birth certificate held by myself has been surrendered to the Court, and I deny any fiduciary responsibility for that Crown property or the name thereon. [Should have been previously surrendered, along with the Canada affidavit, to a judge in chambers hearing.]

5. It all comes right down to this: 'Informed consent'. You do not have to consent to identified as being the name found on the birth certificate. "I do not authorize you to recognize me as being one and the same as the legal identity name you find on your documents. I do not consent to that."

Also, a Freedom Of Information Demand should be sent to the Minister, or Representativerequesting the authority, date, means and methods by which you, a free will man (m or f) became a slave owned by the corporate Crown or State.

A process that has worked recently in Texas is the 'surrender' of the copy of the birth certificate one has in possession to a judge, or the judge assigned to a case where you, in the legal identity name, are the defendant, in an 'in chambers' hearing. Some call this 'surrender' of the defendant (the legal identity name) as being on the 'private side' using the Biblical method of settling disputes privately if possible.

This is preferred to 'surrendering it in court' as that is on the 'public side', and as a human presence in the court  room, the assumption that you are an attachmentto the legal identity name has already been made. And being attached as an accessory

to it, you become surety, guarantor and do 'represent' the legal identity name defendant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Addendum 1 Name Game

I don't promote or use the Commercial Redemption system. I just suggest showing the

'authorities" that I, and the 'legal identity name' are not one and the same party.

The Statement of Live Birth and the Birth Certificate can be used as proof of that,

since, as a child, you had nothing to do with the registration of your birth, nor

with the choice of names you were to be called as a child.

1. The Birth Certificate shows that it belongs to the State/Province where you were

born, and thus, is the property of the State or Crown in right of the Province.

2. The name on that shows your family name to be the primary name of the 'legal i

dentity name' - a 'surname', and the first and second names being referential to

it. That is fiction. The family name is a clan name. It is not the name of an

individual man (m or f).

3. The Statement of Birth shows that the first and second name is a gift (given names),

and as such is a contract. An infant (under age 21) cannot be party to a contract.

An acceptor of a gift must 'accept', and accept voluntarily. Thus, you have never

'accepted' the given names. There is no mechanism to do that in the Roman Law we

are under. The Roman law only sees the legal identity name, a name that belongs

to the corporate Roman Empire of the Pope.

4. An adult man is actually a mind inhabiting a physical human body. Only things

can be named. A mind is a process, not a thing.

Thus, when a human becomes an adult, that is akin to the launching of a new ship.

The adult mind is equivalent to the captain of a ship at sea. The captain is sovereign

or supreme on his ship. The only way a captain of a ship can lose that sovereignty

is by putting his ship 'in tow' voluntarily behind another ship. It is then that

the tow ship captain gains sovereignty over the captain of the ship in tow.

The legal identity name is the rope that ties our vessel to the corporate Crown of

the City of London (owned by the corporate Holy Roman Empire).

The Name Game Blog explains the rest.

Addendum 2 Name Game

The name "they" use on all their documents, including indictments, is the legal

name. I believe there is no argument with that. In fact, the courts are usually

ready to agree with that classification without hesitation.

By presenting the Statement of Birth (SOB) to them and asking them to do an

investigation with a view to answering just two simple questions, will repel all

attacks from the "system". The two questions are:

1. Who has secured the rights (legal and equitable) in the legal name??? (insert

name exactly as it appears on the Birth Certificate even though the all caps aspect

is a red herring); and,

2. What rights do I have in the legal name ???

The answers to these two questions will prove (in Ontario SOB's are admissible

in any Ontario court as Proof, not just evidence, of the facts so certified) that

1. the government secured the rights (a.k.a. the secured party) in the legal name

and, therefore, I have no rights in the legal name. 2. If I have no rights in the

legal name, then how can I have any obligations related to the legal name?

The party that the law holds legally responsible for the financial and other

obligations of the property (legal name) is the secured party, which is the

government in the case of the legal name. This is all proven by the SOB!

It would seem to me that there is no place for the system to go once this truth

is on the table. Certainly CRA can be easily defeated with this approach.

However, the judge may make the assumption that by your 'permanent' use of the

legal identity name, you have become an accessory attached to that Crown owned

name, and thus you are the property of the Crown by the legal maxim, which

arises out of the property right, accessio cedit principali. Thus, to complete

the above procedure, you must, by affidavit or notice, make a claim of right

of free will status and claim that the Crown owned name is used by permission

of Her Majesty and used under private necessity in commerce to sustain and

maintain your life. As such, your use of the Crown owned name is not a voluntary

act by yourself.  End of blog

For those people who get a demand to file, they can safely use my filing method:

 Canada or USA   http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm

Since one never again 'owes taxes' using my method, no one need file unless

demanded to do so by the IRS or CRA(Canada). That rule is in both the Canadian

Income Tax Act and Title 26 USC. Of course, if people wish to try to get back

withheld (wages) taxes, they must file.

Eldon Warman